This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I don't see any plane in this pohotography. Ariev 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Um....maybe because it BLEW UP? -- Mmx1 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) It blew up too in World Trade Center and some airplane parts have been found. Ariev 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
List contriversal/conspiracy web sites. That pretty much means list websites that tell the truth...
A lot of you seem to think you're "experts" on this topic (you wouldn't be editing pages otherwise).
If you feel expert enough to edit these pages, please take a little time to actually investigate the topic.
Proactively seek the truth. Make up your own mind. Don't believe everything you're told, and definately don't believe everything the Bush and the PNAC neo-cons tell you about 9/11.
You're no expert yourself. If you think Bush would actually plan out the 9/11 attacks YOUR CRAZY!!! I just hate people like you.
There was some confusion between OrbitOne and myself; he thought I caused the vandalism. Everything's worked out now. Xiphoris 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there was some obvious vandalism to this page with someone defacing it to say that Saddam Hussein was behind it, UFOs, Effiel Tower was hit, etc. I tried to revert it properly but don't know if I did. Xiphoris 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of templates. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
...so why did User:SNIyer12 delete all of the page contents...? Jhardin@impsec 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
To tell the truth, i think the government knew all about 9/11 n' crap. Oh, and if the towers fell from planes, then why did they fall EXACTLY how buildings fall when they are dynamited eh? I think that 9/11 was all planned. Son Goku22
I am repeating this because it is unfinsihed business that was archived.
This article is still too long. It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky. I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality. It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section). How about it, guys? We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is about what happened on 9/11 and its specfic aftermath. Please do not insert the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. Please do not insert the word "terrorist" into the text an excessive number of times. The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists. The 9/11 Commission has its own page. -- Pinktulip 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is correct to say that the terrorists were terrorists; ostentatiously avoiding the word is not neutrality. Some editors have thought it necessary to make clear that the 9/11 Commission is the organization that using the 't' word; this is part of why I was concerned with your (otherwise reasonable) efforts to trim fat from the article. In trimming fat, you also cut out the citations that some thought needed to be there. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists."
Or every single Chinese media and Chinese government labeling independece movements such Falun Gong (which has killed pro-government civilians) "terrorist pr
Tom Harrison: The reader, does not need the help of the 9/11 Commission to figure out that the attackers are terrorists. The assertion can be made by the article that Al-Quaida is a terrorist organization without the help of the 9/11 Commission. Please stop re-inserting the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. -- Pinktulip 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the reader need the Warren Commission to tell him that Lee Harvey Oswald was an "assasin"? No. Does the reader need the corresponding Commissions of the Challenger/Columbia shuttle loses to tell him that those events were "disasters" and "accidents"? No. So also, the reader does not need this Comission's word of "terrorist". The reader can figure it out for himself. -- Pinktulip 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Bill Harrison: Let us take this scenario:
We currently keep the mention of two wars to the thrird paragraph, but you keep inserting the 9/11 commission into the second paragraph. I think that this represents a lack of perspective on what is historically Important. The 9/11 Commission happened much later than 9/11 and merely collected information and submitted a report. If it provides new facts about what happened earlier, then incorporate those specific facts. If you want to add that "NYC/USA/World was terrorized to some quantifiable degree", then that would not be incorrect, but the reader can probably figure out this somewhat vague notion on their own, based on the other, more specific facts. I am going to wait another day and then I am going to remove your added reference to the 9/11 Commssion again because it does not fit into the historical narrative. -- Pinktulip 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Using the word "terrorist", "terror", etc. occur thirty times in the article; that is more than enough. It is merely a label and provides little information to the reader. 30 times is more than enough. It occurs once in the lead section and that is sufficient. -- Pinktulip 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia guidelines:
The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)
It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are.
I agree with pinktulip that adding 9/11 Commision to the lead section adds bloat without important new information. What is the problem with word "militant"? What is the specific need why it should be replaced with the word "terrorist"?
I'd kindly appreciate if all the contributors introduced themselves into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia should not be a political battlefield, so please don't start edit wars against clearly stated policies and guidelines - instead, discuss about your opinions in the talk pages. Thanks. Klaam 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The descriptive word is terrorist. It is verifiable and it is cited. This is the Wikipedia policy. It is necessary to label the 19 hijackers as terrorists. There is a problem with the word militant -- it is inaccurate. What's been called bloat appears to me to be a smokescreen in order to prevent the article from describing their acts [to] make clear what they are. (quoting the guideline already mentioned) patsw 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Patsw: Your comment in your most recent change to the Talk page "Perhaps it should occur 35 times" helps to highlight the problem. Such repeatative usage of a word in a historical narrative is a warning sign of a problem. It might not really be problem, but it might be a problem with balance, it might be POV. It is not hard to see how such a repetative usage leads to bloat. If you really think that there is some kind of smokescreen, then please just cut through it an point out what it is that is behind that smokescreen and that is so Important. -- Pinktulip 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We are discussing different things so don't take them out of context. I give a little in my last comment and that isn't enough. Obviously you want the term terrorist removed from here and that aint gonna happen. I've looked through and read many of those articles over the past year and the word terrorism doesn't fit in most cases anyway.-- MONGO 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of conspiracy could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers 69.231.8.216 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I misread that. Still, I felt the addition suffered from some issues. My latest changes are here. Thanks. El_C 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, "conspiracy" is a far more meaningful, accurate and appropriate word than "set", "group" or "series", the three words which have been inserted to replace it. Trying to compare two teenagers stealing shoes with (at least) 20 terrorists conspiring for years and succeeding in killing thousands and destroying $billions in property, this is a vacuous comparison.
To me the part about the conspiracies is incredibly biased. It basically says that the theories are put forward by those that hate the government or even America (Gods own nation iself!) or are just trying to get money of it. In my eyes, that is nowhere near neutral. JS 15 February 2006
I have noticed the edits and reverts, concerning comparisons of the 9/11 death toll with those of the Battle of Antietam, during the Civil War. I think some clarifications are needed:
Another user insisted that this topic was to be created. I added a link ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm) disputing the claim of the "nineteen hijackers". I see no problem adding this link. Do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.1.180 ( talk • contribs)
It should be noted that some of the "hijackers" are ALIVE and well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
--
Tyler rurdon
That was dated the 23 of September, 2001, when news was sketchy. What does the 911 commission have to say about it? Do you honestly think that hasn't been resolved? --
Mmx1 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that there were demonstrations all over the world in protest against these terrorist acts. Some information should be noted. As a sidenote, even as I regard the Yussuf Islam issue important I do not think it belongs to this article. Get-back-world-respect 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It is now beyond ridiculous to have this site including so much proven disinformation. Wikipedia will be judged by how soon it came to the same conclusion millions are now coming to--9-11 was an elaborate fraud involving the controlled demolition of a set of aging, asbestos-ridden office buildings that contained investigative files from the SEC and a whole lot of other stuff that was destroyed. There is ZERO evidence for the involvement of any of the alleged hijackers, and bin Laden did NOT ever admit guilt (see fake audio tapes, fake terror experts, and fake arab news networks. Members of the Project for a New American Century, a collection of radical neoconservatives, planned and executed the attacks after stealing the election in 2000, using the "attacks" as a pretext for wars of economics and geopolitics. These are FACTS, people. Open your eyes and we can save what's left of our country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.28.241 ( talk • contribs) . (*sigh*)
Nearly every crime can be looked at from two differing, but equally important facets. First, the investigator will thoroughly examine the evidence, looking for clues in the evidence that may point to the perpetrator. Secondly, the crime must be looked at within the context of which they were committed. Perhaps the most important question regarding September 11th is cuo bono -- who benefits? Anybody that does research beyond the hard-hitting, objective journalism of CNN will come to realize that the sheer number of inconsistencies -- the time of the collapse (significance: recall Newton's third law and the free-fall speed of the collapse), the mysterious collapse of WTC7, the statistic-defying symmmetry of both collapses, numerous reports of secondary-devices [explosives] (including audio testimony, video interviews, and siesmic graphs), the unwillingness of Administration officials to testify under oath, the initial blocking of an investigation into the collapses, ... -- weighs heavily against the complete official account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.32.123 ( talk • contribs)
Proof or not, WP should still include what people believe. WP should not be he judge but simply state the fact. And the fact is that there are a distinct minority who belive they have the evidence to proove that WTC was demoed. They may be wrong. We are not skilled enough to find out, and if we did it would be original research. But WP should include this information. Didn't Jimbo said something like "we can write about what people believe"?. There are plenty of articles with hypotheses and theories that has not been proved e.g. religious articles, various physic theories etc. -- EyesAllMine 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[6] [7] [8] [9]-- MONGO 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Unawnsered questions: [ [10]] [ [11]] Ariev 18:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2006
This is interesting, but it's not news. It's a press release. They're self-proclaimed experts. They wrote this themselves for distribution. Perhaps their claims are true, but this isn't an actual news piece written by journalists, it's a press release written by the people making these claims talking in the third person. What I find really interesting is that Yahoo News seems to have picked it up as news. -- Mr. Billion 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Morgan Reynolds, one of the named people in the group has stated that aircrafts had nothing to do with the collapse of the world trade center...the isn't a single expert in this group that knows the first thing about controlled demolition... [12] and here is a discussion of the largest building ever imploded by experts that do implosions for a living. The task of doing controlled demolition on the WTC would have been one of a magnitude several times greater than the largest building every imploded...not to mention the coverup. Company profile and discussion of the world record largest implosion [13].-- MONGO 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to video google, and type 9/11....the first hit is a one-hour 'all-facts, no nonesense' documentary detailing just how impossible it is that 9/11 occurred as we are now being told it did.
They don't claim to be experts in controlled demolition; they simply show you that there *WERE* multiple explosions level by level and that many of the onlookers said it sounded like and looked like a controlled demolition exercise.
Hey there crusaders. Great, 3 words in and it's already potentially loaded language. *laughs weakly*
just quickly, i haven't read the archived discussions but i have read the article and this page in its entirety. Apologies for those bothered by a topic already covered being brought up again, if that's the case, but having considered that may be the case i think it merits further consideration.
I think that http://st911.org/ should be included as an external link.
I know that many will say that it belongs on the 9/11 conspiracies page, but i think that its content is in the conspiracies page. Adding it as a link recognizes that there is an increasingly divergent opinion about the facts of the tower collapses. Wikipedia is great in that its content is factually supported as best as possible (recent study indicated that Wikipedia is generally at least as reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica on science and nature articles) but also able to incorporate new information. 3 of the papers published by PhDs at the site i'm suggesting respond to the findings of the 9/11 Commission. They report interviews with highly regarded demolition experts, they add additional information about certain events in the lead up to and the follow up of the WTC collapse.
They do have a wide base of skills and experience within their membership, and if there is objection to adding a link to their site on the grounds that some of its content or links it provides are not as well supported as others, then i believe there should be a link from this Wikipedia article to at least the same article as linked to from the WTC7 Wikipedia entry which is available on the ST911 site.
I am not starting any argument here based on things which I've read, watched, listened to, or considered and i don't feel i need to or that anybody needs to take a contrary 'raving loonie conspiracy' stance. The article would be more complete if the link was included in the External Links section, or if Scholars for 911 truth was hyperlinked when it's mentioned in the article, although that would then have to go to a Wiki about them before linking. Holigopoly 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The second plane, Flight 175, hit at 9:03 and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. Yet in 34 minutes between the two hits, surface-to-air missiles were completely ignored and they had to scramble fighters from miles away to try to intercept Flight 77? I've always wondered about this. Did Washington believe that Flight 77 was somehow different from the others and that it WASN'T going to be a suicide run? Why weren't surface-to-air missiles used to take down Flight 77?-- Secret Agent Man 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not putting in 'scare' quotes. What do you mean by that? When I last asked for request for comment the consensus that came out of it was that terrorist word was undefined and too POV to use it (unless article is quoting USGOV) -- max rspct leave a message 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism is much abused word and is currently being applied (by USGOV, media and their defenders) in away that is much broader than violence against innocent civilians. We have a big problem if you are going to equate terrorism with unconventional warfare. Also , the WTC attack was an attack on the economy of USA > it was not deliberatly targeted at innocent civilians. When it comes to US-sponsered terrorism (and don't forget past genocides and the torture going on in Guantanamo bay right now) I don't even have to mention the atomic/fire bombings. What about Gen Wesley Clark and his bombings of infrastructure and bridges in Serbia (to undermine serbian economy and moral) during the Kosovo War - are you going to tell me they were terrorist actions or not? On those hi-tech images of bombs going into those bridges it was clear that civilian traffic was on them and the results were as dramatic and horrific as the sequence of events on 9/11... tho I am sure US TV networks weren't pitching their tents next to those parts of Serbia etc etc that were being bombed. My main concern is the blanket use of that term (terrorism) within this article including the generalising description of Indonesian and Philipino Islamic movements. As for calling someone by their usename ...well what are usernames for if you can't alert people on talkpages...? If you keep making threats against me MONGO (a dishonourable way of trying to put people off editing this page) I will go for arbitration with you about that AND this article. Perhaps you are just overzealous. As for unconventional warfare - don't tell me the USA hasn't engaged in this as you know perfectly well they have. Last week US defence chiefs unveiled their plan for battling global Islamist extremism: "..require global mobility, rapid strike, sustained unconventional warfare.." See America's long war -- max rspct leave a message 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To avoid generalizations, I think the word "Islamofascist terrorist" is the appropriate one, because it's specific and non-sweeping. It doesn't try to paint all believers as terrorists, nor even those with Islamofascist beliefs -- it identifies those which are the culprits of the 9/11 attacks -- those with radical, militant, religious beliefs who also couple these beliefs with violent action. We are not talking about all terrorists in this article, nor are we talking about conventional insurgent activity, which is far too broad for the scope of this article. It's a specific non-judgmental term.
Morton devonshire 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about conspiracy theories. When is this terrorism as neutral word on wikipedia then? I can only find this>
Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). Also, see this from
terrorism article >
"The definition of a terrorist is so fraught with problems that
Charles Clarke, the
Home Secretary of
Great Britain was forced into providing a list of "approved terrorists" in an attempt to pass his anti-terrorist bill. There was clearly no point in passing legislation to ban people from applauding terrorists if some national and international heroes were not on his list."
Intersting huh? The word is not properly defined and should not be used. Throughout the
apartheid years the
ANC constantly referred to as terorist by the National Party government. And look where we're at now. --
max rspct
leave a message 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Mmx1 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Funny how I keep getting Appeal to emotion, Appeal to motive and Ad hominem - "oh come on Max" "Quit playing games.." etc. Will someone please explain why 'terrorists' should be applied to this article ..while without refering to death, disatser or USGOV view. All MONGO can come up with (besides trying to equate it with unconventional warfare) is "What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism..." Where's the explanation? Terrorism is much undefined and contentious and therefore should not be used in the article except when presenting the USGOV (and their supporters) view of events. -- max rspct leave a message 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with..." What word do the governments and newspapers of these countries use? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh? So newspapers say something is so.. then that's truth right? No room for unbiasness..? The NYtimes says such and such so it must be true? I am not saying that 9/11 hijackers have not been called terrorists. I am not saying that I do not believe they were terrorists. I am just saying that this article should be unbias and take into account both sides of this war without having one view dominating the article. This is happening with the use of the word terrorist. As I have said before Reuters and BBC have preferenced 'insurgents' over terrorists'. -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
see these>
Use of word in Canadian news,
BBC actions,
BBC again,
[15] ..oh and of course CNN backs you up >
[16] --
max rspct
leave a message 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" is a ridiculous phrase. -- Mr. Billion 05:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"The anniversary of September 11, 2001 was dedicated as 'Patriots day'." Can someone move or remove this from the intro? My browser can't edit the intro without chopping off the end of the page. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What historical articles of any encyclopedia have a hypothetical "worst case scenario" to describe what didn't happen?
Even thought it's an authoritative source doing the speculating, it doesn't alter the fact that it is expressing speculation as opposed to an account of what actually happened. patsw 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This aricle is pov. It claims the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory to be factual, something diputed all over the world, even by Bush's former economy minister. All factual statements of the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be NPOVed and the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be split to its own article, just att all other 9/11 conspiracy theroies are on other articles -- Striver 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not factual, the bin laden conspiracy theory is contested, and all the "evidence" it supports itself on is also contested. You may belive it is factual, and you are free to do so. I belive other theories to be factual. This article CLAIMIN one or another theory is factual is POV. It needs to present all of them as theories, and factualy claim that the Bin Laden theory is the one most people regard as credibl-- Striver 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)e, and most people belive to be factual.
I will give you a list of educated and notable people disputing the theory, i cant do it from here. Ill return with a list in about 4-5 houres. -- Striver 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not comaparable with the flat earth theory. We dont have congress womans and university teachers and ex-NYPD people beliving the earth is flat.--
Striver 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the allegation of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory being a POV fork. This article is MAINLY about the attack, not about any eventual theories about how and why. That is easly demostrated by the desicion of removing all OTHER theories to its separate article. But i wont pursue that, its better to me to focus on another angle:
This article states the most popular conspiracy theory to be factual. That is POV. I want that NPOVed. -- Striver 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that this is a POV DISPUTE? Am i air to you?-- Striver 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The above-conflict has shown a bright light on an issue I hadn't considered before, which is WP's policy on Admin neutrality. Since the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I've seen Admins violate all sorts of WP policies to advance their own edit agendas, everything from nominating articles for speedy deletion, ad hominem attacks, stalking, violating 3RR, and writing articles without sources. Is there truly no neutrality standard for Admins? Sorry to burden this audience, but I'm trying to understand where the line is supposed to be drawn, and want to hear from those of you that I know from these pages rather than some dufus who patrols Admin pages. Also, the issue has now become relevant for this article (and the fork) as well. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens
You are breaking NPOV by claimin a theory that is disputed by all of the above to be factual! --
Striver 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The official theory is that neirth the Bush administration, nor the FBI, nor the CIA KNEW about it.
The people in the Zogby poll claimed they did not belive in that theory, instead they belived that they at LEAST knew about it and "they consciously failed to act". This article does not even MENTION that. a clear breach of NPOV. -- Striver 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The report say they " to connect the dots in time", while people belive they "they consciously failed to act". It is a BIG difference between "not havin time" and "consciously failing". -- Striver 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont buy "likely ", "likely" is original research. Official theory: "not enogh time". Zogby answer: "consciously failed". Not even close to eachoter. -- Striver 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is geting to a sidetracked. I dont care what they belived they answered. My claim stands even if we totaly disregard the zogby poll. -- Striver 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Bamford claim was vague, and a misstake to include it. It detracted from my credibility. The zogby poll is first hand verifiable. It asked whether some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". [19]
The answer was a 40-50 "yes" to that. Some tried to original research it to meaning something else than "they consciously failed to act" wheupon i stated that im not here to speculated what they could mean, im only intrested in the obvious statement. Further, i say that my point stands even if the two most ambigues evidence i brought are removed.
Dont bother with those two, it diverts the discussion from what i intended: To change the contains of this aritcle based on stating that the other views are not to be ignored. The other sources i brought are sufficient to support my claim, even withouth those two -- Striver 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I brought 16 points. Two are criticized. 14 remain uncriticized. -- Striver 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I readd my statment:
Ok, i read it:
This means that if i can "easyly name prominent adherents", this view is "a viewpoint...held by a significant minority" and NOT by "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority"
Lets see:
Yes, it was fairly easy to find a:
and more...
Thus: it "is held by a significant minority". Thus our view is a valid reason to not state the other view as factual.
-- Striver 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As is now, our theory is treated as a "tiny-minority", while it in fact is a "significant minority" view. --
Striver 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Try this, they are talking about Pearl Haribor, Oklahoma city bombing and every other thing that is usualy refered to as nut case theories:
www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used
If you want the actual tape, i can try to find it, i have heard it several times.
Ask yourself: Why would David Schipperes talk to Alex Jones in the first place? -- Striver 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actauly, the Wikipedia article got it wrong, he never said six weeks, but the transcripts stand, DS support several "nut case theories" -- Striver 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude, are we talking about the same Alex Jones? The Illuminati-Freemasonry-Tri-Lateralists are gonna get us Alex Jones? Morton devonshire 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Download the 9-11: The Road to Tyranny [22] for free, its legal, and listen to the DS-AJ talk. Its on 57 miuntes 50second. -- Striver 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That is simply not true, it only proves that you know nothing about other views.-- Striver 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation
-- Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Here, a site of scholars sayin the USA governments is lying about 9/11
[23] --
Striver 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
among them:
Is he also a nut-case? --
Striver 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Your claim "without any substance to back it up" is simply false. We already know that you do not share our view, you do not need to reiterate that, we already know that you do not view our arguments as convincing. I find it offesive that you claim we base our view on nothing, just yelling for fun and to get attention. You not accepting our view does not result in Wikipedia presenting your view as factual -- Striver 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
And just to give a simple evidence of control demolition: Building seven, and Harry addminting they "pull it". But im not here to talk about what is the truth or not, im here to edit Wikipedia in a NPOV manner. -- Striver 13:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Larry Silverstein. I do not need to present a single shreed of evidence. I only need to establish that a significan minority contests this theory. And i have done that. -- Striver 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, no meta-discussion in this section. patsw 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I can get you a list of evidence, but there is no reason. I am not here to convince you that other theories are credible, or that the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is false. The truth it totaly irrelevant to my claim. My claim is: A significant minority is contesting the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and hence is Wikipedia not to present the Bin Laden conspiracy theory as factual, no mater who is right. Wikipeida does not care for the truth.
This demand can not be contested.
-- Striver 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Get real mongo, do you even know what the word "conpiracy" means? Ill quote this article as it is now:
-- Striver 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
So, is my claim proven correct? I claim the following three points:
1) Wikipedia policies forbid that the Bin Laden theory is stated as factual as long as a "significant minority" contest it.
2) There is a "significant minority" contesting the Bin Laden theory.
3) The Bin Laden theory is not to be presented as factual in Wikiepdia.
Is any of this three statments are contested? If not, i will prepare to make changes. --
Striver 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I guess i need to continue talking. -- Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry, that is not true. I have mentioned people that are notable in themselve, not withstanding their view on 9/11. ill list a few of them again:
That is a *short* list of people notable in themself. HOWEVER! Let me remined you that the wiki policy is NOT to find people that are notable in themsleve for the view to be considered "significant minority", it is enough that it is easy to find proponets of the view. And for that, i need not go longer than Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and Michael Rivero. With that, i state that i have provided much more evidence than necesary to prove that i hold a "significant minority" view. -- Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Quasipalm 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i belive that Wikipolicy is very clear that "theory of evolution" should not be presented as factual. I think many of the problems they face on that article is that they have merged "Macro Evolution" with "Micro Evolution". The second is not contested, and can be presented as a fact, but a "significant minority" is contesting "Macro Evolution". The correct thing to do is to split the Evolution article into Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.
I agree that September 11, 2001 attacks / 9/11 conspiracy theories makes sence, one article for the facts, another one for the theory. I am not contesting that. What i am contesting is that a theory contested by a "significant minority" is presented as factual, and that goes against core principles of Wikiepdia WP:NPOV.
As for the
Apollo 11 /
Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, that is unfair since there is no "significant minority" for that theis, and certainly not a list of this kind:
As for Evolution / Creation-evolution controversy, i mentioned it above.
In other words: "Apollo moon landing hoax" is not comparable, and Evolution is filled with POV talks in the talk page, so that is no ideal solution to point to. I await your answer-- Striver 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Bro, you are misstaken. I am not here to say what happpened. I am saying that a contested view is presented as factual, and that is POV. I have provided ample proof of the theory being rejected by a "significant minority". My aim right now is very simple: Stop claiming the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is factual, since it is contested by a "significant minority".
I do not need to give a alternative theory for that. In fact, that would weeken my position, people would start attacking it, and i would need to start defending it, instead of focusing on the main issue. The simple rejection of the theory as factual is enough for Wikipedia to not claim it as factual.
Now, it happens that i do have a alternative theory, but i have no need to bring that up. It would just side track me. I keep it simple, and nobody can refute me as long as i do that. -- Striver 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, James Bamford was a misstake. But David Schippers is much more that "merely critical", he is stating things that are generaly labeled with the pejorative "conspiracy theories", such as US having foreknowledge of pearl Harbor, and Irakir elit guard being involved in the Oklahoma city bombing. Why dont you dissprove these guys saying Bush did it?
-- Striver 02:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I read your massage again. Please tell me if you feel i did not understand you. -- Striver 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus for Striver's particular point here, except his own, so let's consider the matter decided. Stive-man -- admire your determination, but save your powder for another day. Peace out. Morton devonshire 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Bro, i know that people are not agreeing with me, they are offering all kinds of explenations and counter arguements that are not valid, such as demanding that i give evidence and other things that wikipedia policies do not oblige me to offer. I have Wikipolicy on my side, and people will eventualy see that. Thanks for your comment.-- Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT here to prove or promote any theory, theis or anything at all.
I AM here to state that the Bin Laden theory is not to be stated as factual.
--
Striver 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone more having a vaild counterarguement?
Anyone else contesting that a "significant minority", according to wikiepdia standarts, is rejecting the Bin Laden theory? -- Striver 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As i see it, i am quoting WP official policies, and i am delivering exactly what it demands from me.
Basicly: I have right.
Basicly: You dont like it. You hate it. You give non-relevant arguements against it.
So, can i have a relevant argument?
Do not give me the following, since it has been proven irrelevant or false:
And such. I dont need to prove anyting. I only need to establish that a significant minority, in Wikipeida standards, reject it, and i have done that.
The truth is:
You dont like it. You seem to argue that if you stop answering me, or keep repreating irrelevant arguments, ill get tired and go away. That is not going to happen. -- Striver 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
And for your benefit, i repreat a short list of people rejecting the theory:
-- Striver 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You are talking about their theories. In that sense, the are not a uniform, but they are uniform in that they reject the Bin Laden version, and that is my point.
Im not here to give a theory, im here to state that a significant minorty REJECTS the Bin Laden view. And according to WP:NPOV, that means "easly to find representatives". And i did that.
And i did better than that, i even presented individual that are notable in themselves. It is impossible to claim that * the former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry and the The former chief economist of George W. Bush are insignificant people. And they reject the Bin Laden theory. Hence, it is proven that this article is POV. -- Striver 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm suprised to see that so many people belive that conspiracy BS. Hell, someone has even claimed that a nuclear bomb destroyed the towers. Kurt Leyman
You are talking about the nutcases, either patsies or idiots. Let me quote:
-- Striver 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is proven factual, why dont you go claim the 1 000 000 dollars?-- Striver 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the paragraph about Howard Stern here? This doesn't seem to be public response but an advertisement for Stern. His show was an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' is POV. My local tv station was also an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' but it has no mention.
Should this paragraph be deleted? I could be wrong of course so if I am that is fine. -- Skinnyboy401 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The fatwa was jointly issued with Fazlur Rahman (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam rather than the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman. Is this correct? -- max rspct leave a message 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is still pov.
And by the way, read this:
I dropped it since i didnt want my main point being diverted into a disscusion about what they meant. I reposted it since i now have the complete quote and article.
This article is still POV, it portrays the Bin Laden theory as factual. Read:
"Believe news reports that
Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:
Now, dont tell me that 86% of Pakistan is a insignicant minorty. -- Striver 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So, anyone that want to argue that the article is is NPOV? Majority in the middle east outright reject Arab involvment, S9/11T reject Bin Ladin theory, half of newyourk belives government is lying... c'mon, people, its imposible to say all of those are insignificant! -- Striver 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no position on the articles you mentioned. I try to focus on one single issue here: The article presenting the Bin Laden theory as factual is pov, since it is notably diputed, to say the least. -- Striver 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I read your edit, and i didnt get what this means:
Could you expand on that? -- Striver 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A significant number of doubters means you mention that a significant number doubt it. It doesn't mean you change it to a theory unless you have facts saying otherwise. -- Mmx1 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we that reject the Bin Laden theory do not regard what you call "evidence" as convincing. But anyhow, Wikipedia does not care for facts, truth and such. Not the least. from WP:NPOV
-- Striver 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
also from
WP:NPOV: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. The "Bin Laden Theory", as you call it, is factual. Debate on this page has not negated that. The doubters have nothing consistent to offer (if it did you would be offering it instead of asserting "so many people believe X is false, hence we must state it as an opinion".
--
Mmx1 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Jesus page and note that it's neutrality is disputed. So is John F. Kennedy assassination. Why shouldn't this page be so? To address Babajobu, I think what I percieve is a majority imposing it's will on a minority. Just because the minority is fractous doesn't mean it's wrong. The minority claim is this: the story as told by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and FEMA is largely untrue. Pakistani villagers may express that differently but it's the same claim. Look at Galileo's minority opinion which we now generally agree to have been more correct than the official story of the time. Kaimiddleton 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose adding "See also 9/11 Truth Movement" under the heading of "Conspiracy Theories". The fact that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement is not mentioned anywhere on this page. 9/11 conspiracy theories and a movement of people asking questions about the government related but distinct. Furthermore, the movement has been steadily present over time. I see every reason to include a short "see also" in a section that is already very short, and feel that it is of extreme POV to argue otherwise. Kaimiddleton 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither are any of the individual conspiracy theories mentioned here. Avoiding scrutiny by hiding under the phrase "asking questions" doesn't give your group any priority over all the rest. -- Mmx1 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That group is but one of dozens of groups that claim they have all the "truth" on the issue. That "movement" can be discussed in more detail in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is not extreme POV to argue otherwise.-- MONGO 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
To echo MONGO: If none of the individual conspiracy theories are mentioned here I find that fair. However "my group" is not quite an accurate characterization in my view; for instance, the "peace movement" is made of many different groups. My group is the 9/11 truth alliance. There are many researchers or people in the broader public who do not go under that rubrick but consider themselves "members of" or even just "involved in" the "9/11 truth movement". Kaimiddleton 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I argue that excluding my short phrase is POV as follows: 1) the comment is short. 2) the rest of the article is long and, from my perspective, reflects the "official story" or the story expressed by the mainstream press in great detail. Many other pages are linked to from here, e.g., a list of tenants (victims) of the two towers. Significant members of the victims families, e.g. the jersey girls, are part of the movement of people who continue to ask questions about the official story. The history of their claims is reflected in the article 9/11 Truth Movement whereas their claims themselves are reflected in 9/11 conspiracy theories. These are separate (though linked) subjects, both of notable significance. Compare that with pressing "random article" on wikipidia. Therefore, they deserve mention here in the way I have done. There is nowhere else on this page that "9/11 truth movement" is mentioned. Therefore it is appropriate and non-redundant to mention it here. Kaimiddleton 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And if you apply this consistently to every other group under 9/11, we end up with a list of alternate theories which is exactly why the section got spun off. -- Mmx1 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the article history comment I see:
Ok: we seem to be on the subject for Framing (communication theory); you might argue I want to frame the discussion one way or another. It is clear to me that framing linked-to material as "conspiracy theories" rather than "9/11 truth movement" weakens my case. So I see your point about the "naming discussion". However, I think it's not a rehash of that discussion because I am viewing the "9/11 truth movement" article as a discussion of the sweep of the movement (when did it start, how many people are involved, what kind of political actions happened), rather than a crystalized summary of specific claims of that movement, as reflected in "9/11 conspiracy theories". Kaimiddleton 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the formatting slightly of how I'm adding reference to the 9/11 truth movement. I have done it as a reference. The next section does it the same way. Since the conspiracy theory is a section under this article it should have more than a cursory mention of what the sub-section talks about. In fact this section should be further fleshed out. By providing a reference to a non-trivial article that already exists it gives the wiki reader a place to go to find out more if they so choose. That's the point, isn't it? Kaimiddleton 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added another sentence:
I think that's a clear characterization of what's going on. Let me put my viewpoint in a less formal manner: there are conspiracy theories. There was a report. There is still argument. Yes, there is actually an ongoing effort by numerous individuals to ask more questions. NOW: that's simple, accurate information, and in my view to not say that is censorship and POV. Kaimiddleton 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose inclusion of references to the 9/11 Truth Movement in this article. That sort of stuff belongs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Morton devonshire 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in saying that all the hijackers had identity cards? If so, that would seem to be notable and thus worthy of mention in the article. Eiler7 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is worthy of inclusion.. or perhaps to the 'planning of the attacks article'? -- max rspct leave a message 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the text, "five major airlines declared bankruptcy in the four years following the attacks", because I think including this implies a direct cause and effect between the terrorist attacks and the problems in the airline industry. Undoubtedly, the terrorist attacks had a major effect on the airline industry (so, I kept the word "severely"), but even without the attacks, the airlines were in trouble anyway. This is due similar reasons as those impacting General Motors and the Ford Motor Company (e.g. underfunded pensions, health care costs, benefits, ...). Another major reason for the airline stuggles is competition with airlines such as Southwest Airlines, which doesn't have the same structural problems and hasn't experience the same problems since the terrorist attacks. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I don't see any plane in this pohotography. Ariev 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Um....maybe because it BLEW UP? -- Mmx1 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) It blew up too in World Trade Center and some airplane parts have been found. Ariev 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
List contriversal/conspiracy web sites. That pretty much means list websites that tell the truth...
A lot of you seem to think you're "experts" on this topic (you wouldn't be editing pages otherwise).
If you feel expert enough to edit these pages, please take a little time to actually investigate the topic.
Proactively seek the truth. Make up your own mind. Don't believe everything you're told, and definately don't believe everything the Bush and the PNAC neo-cons tell you about 9/11.
You're no expert yourself. If you think Bush would actually plan out the 9/11 attacks YOUR CRAZY!!! I just hate people like you.
There was some confusion between OrbitOne and myself; he thought I caused the vandalism. Everything's worked out now. Xiphoris 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there was some obvious vandalism to this page with someone defacing it to say that Saddam Hussein was behind it, UFOs, Effiel Tower was hit, etc. I tried to revert it properly but don't know if I did. Xiphoris 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of templates. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
...so why did User:SNIyer12 delete all of the page contents...? Jhardin@impsec 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
To tell the truth, i think the government knew all about 9/11 n' crap. Oh, and if the towers fell from planes, then why did they fall EXACTLY how buildings fall when they are dynamited eh? I think that 9/11 was all planned. Son Goku22
I am repeating this because it is unfinsihed business that was archived.
This article is still too long. It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky. I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality. It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section). How about it, guys? We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is about what happened on 9/11 and its specfic aftermath. Please do not insert the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. Please do not insert the word "terrorist" into the text an excessive number of times. The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists. The 9/11 Commission has its own page. -- Pinktulip 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is correct to say that the terrorists were terrorists; ostentatiously avoiding the word is not neutrality. Some editors have thought it necessary to make clear that the 9/11 Commission is the organization that using the 't' word; this is part of why I was concerned with your (otherwise reasonable) efforts to trim fat from the article. In trimming fat, you also cut out the citations that some thought needed to be there. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists."
Or every single Chinese media and Chinese government labeling independece movements such Falun Gong (which has killed pro-government civilians) "terrorist pr
Tom Harrison: The reader, does not need the help of the 9/11 Commission to figure out that the attackers are terrorists. The assertion can be made by the article that Al-Quaida is a terrorist organization without the help of the 9/11 Commission. Please stop re-inserting the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. -- Pinktulip 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the reader need the Warren Commission to tell him that Lee Harvey Oswald was an "assasin"? No. Does the reader need the corresponding Commissions of the Challenger/Columbia shuttle loses to tell him that those events were "disasters" and "accidents"? No. So also, the reader does not need this Comission's word of "terrorist". The reader can figure it out for himself. -- Pinktulip 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Bill Harrison: Let us take this scenario:
We currently keep the mention of two wars to the thrird paragraph, but you keep inserting the 9/11 commission into the second paragraph. I think that this represents a lack of perspective on what is historically Important. The 9/11 Commission happened much later than 9/11 and merely collected information and submitted a report. If it provides new facts about what happened earlier, then incorporate those specific facts. If you want to add that "NYC/USA/World was terrorized to some quantifiable degree", then that would not be incorrect, but the reader can probably figure out this somewhat vague notion on their own, based on the other, more specific facts. I am going to wait another day and then I am going to remove your added reference to the 9/11 Commssion again because it does not fit into the historical narrative. -- Pinktulip 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Using the word "terrorist", "terror", etc. occur thirty times in the article; that is more than enough. It is merely a label and provides little information to the reader. 30 times is more than enough. It occurs once in the lead section and that is sufficient. -- Pinktulip 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia guidelines:
The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)
It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are.
I agree with pinktulip that adding 9/11 Commision to the lead section adds bloat without important new information. What is the problem with word "militant"? What is the specific need why it should be replaced with the word "terrorist"?
I'd kindly appreciate if all the contributors introduced themselves into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia should not be a political battlefield, so please don't start edit wars against clearly stated policies and guidelines - instead, discuss about your opinions in the talk pages. Thanks. Klaam 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The descriptive word is terrorist. It is verifiable and it is cited. This is the Wikipedia policy. It is necessary to label the 19 hijackers as terrorists. There is a problem with the word militant -- it is inaccurate. What's been called bloat appears to me to be a smokescreen in order to prevent the article from describing their acts [to] make clear what they are. (quoting the guideline already mentioned) patsw 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Patsw: Your comment in your most recent change to the Talk page "Perhaps it should occur 35 times" helps to highlight the problem. Such repeatative usage of a word in a historical narrative is a warning sign of a problem. It might not really be problem, but it might be a problem with balance, it might be POV. It is not hard to see how such a repetative usage leads to bloat. If you really think that there is some kind of smokescreen, then please just cut through it an point out what it is that is behind that smokescreen and that is so Important. -- Pinktulip 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We are discussing different things so don't take them out of context. I give a little in my last comment and that isn't enough. Obviously you want the term terrorist removed from here and that aint gonna happen. I've looked through and read many of those articles over the past year and the word terrorism doesn't fit in most cases anyway.-- MONGO 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of conspiracy could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers 69.231.8.216 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I misread that. Still, I felt the addition suffered from some issues. My latest changes are here. Thanks. El_C 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, "conspiracy" is a far more meaningful, accurate and appropriate word than "set", "group" or "series", the three words which have been inserted to replace it. Trying to compare two teenagers stealing shoes with (at least) 20 terrorists conspiring for years and succeeding in killing thousands and destroying $billions in property, this is a vacuous comparison.
To me the part about the conspiracies is incredibly biased. It basically says that the theories are put forward by those that hate the government or even America (Gods own nation iself!) or are just trying to get money of it. In my eyes, that is nowhere near neutral. JS 15 February 2006
I have noticed the edits and reverts, concerning comparisons of the 9/11 death toll with those of the Battle of Antietam, during the Civil War. I think some clarifications are needed:
Another user insisted that this topic was to be created. I added a link ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm) disputing the claim of the "nineteen hijackers". I see no problem adding this link. Do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.1.180 ( talk • contribs)
It should be noted that some of the "hijackers" are ALIVE and well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
--
Tyler rurdon
That was dated the 23 of September, 2001, when news was sketchy. What does the 911 commission have to say about it? Do you honestly think that hasn't been resolved? --
Mmx1 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that there were demonstrations all over the world in protest against these terrorist acts. Some information should be noted. As a sidenote, even as I regard the Yussuf Islam issue important I do not think it belongs to this article. Get-back-world-respect 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It is now beyond ridiculous to have this site including so much proven disinformation. Wikipedia will be judged by how soon it came to the same conclusion millions are now coming to--9-11 was an elaborate fraud involving the controlled demolition of a set of aging, asbestos-ridden office buildings that contained investigative files from the SEC and a whole lot of other stuff that was destroyed. There is ZERO evidence for the involvement of any of the alleged hijackers, and bin Laden did NOT ever admit guilt (see fake audio tapes, fake terror experts, and fake arab news networks. Members of the Project for a New American Century, a collection of radical neoconservatives, planned and executed the attacks after stealing the election in 2000, using the "attacks" as a pretext for wars of economics and geopolitics. These are FACTS, people. Open your eyes and we can save what's left of our country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.28.241 ( talk • contribs) . (*sigh*)
Nearly every crime can be looked at from two differing, but equally important facets. First, the investigator will thoroughly examine the evidence, looking for clues in the evidence that may point to the perpetrator. Secondly, the crime must be looked at within the context of which they were committed. Perhaps the most important question regarding September 11th is cuo bono -- who benefits? Anybody that does research beyond the hard-hitting, objective journalism of CNN will come to realize that the sheer number of inconsistencies -- the time of the collapse (significance: recall Newton's third law and the free-fall speed of the collapse), the mysterious collapse of WTC7, the statistic-defying symmmetry of both collapses, numerous reports of secondary-devices [explosives] (including audio testimony, video interviews, and siesmic graphs), the unwillingness of Administration officials to testify under oath, the initial blocking of an investigation into the collapses, ... -- weighs heavily against the complete official account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.32.123 ( talk • contribs)
Proof or not, WP should still include what people believe. WP should not be he judge but simply state the fact. And the fact is that there are a distinct minority who belive they have the evidence to proove that WTC was demoed. They may be wrong. We are not skilled enough to find out, and if we did it would be original research. But WP should include this information. Didn't Jimbo said something like "we can write about what people believe"?. There are plenty of articles with hypotheses and theories that has not been proved e.g. religious articles, various physic theories etc. -- EyesAllMine 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[6] [7] [8] [9]-- MONGO 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Unawnsered questions: [ [10]] [ [11]] Ariev 18:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2006
This is interesting, but it's not news. It's a press release. They're self-proclaimed experts. They wrote this themselves for distribution. Perhaps their claims are true, but this isn't an actual news piece written by journalists, it's a press release written by the people making these claims talking in the third person. What I find really interesting is that Yahoo News seems to have picked it up as news. -- Mr. Billion 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Morgan Reynolds, one of the named people in the group has stated that aircrafts had nothing to do with the collapse of the world trade center...the isn't a single expert in this group that knows the first thing about controlled demolition... [12] and here is a discussion of the largest building ever imploded by experts that do implosions for a living. The task of doing controlled demolition on the WTC would have been one of a magnitude several times greater than the largest building every imploded...not to mention the coverup. Company profile and discussion of the world record largest implosion [13].-- MONGO 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to video google, and type 9/11....the first hit is a one-hour 'all-facts, no nonesense' documentary detailing just how impossible it is that 9/11 occurred as we are now being told it did.
They don't claim to be experts in controlled demolition; they simply show you that there *WERE* multiple explosions level by level and that many of the onlookers said it sounded like and looked like a controlled demolition exercise.
Hey there crusaders. Great, 3 words in and it's already potentially loaded language. *laughs weakly*
just quickly, i haven't read the archived discussions but i have read the article and this page in its entirety. Apologies for those bothered by a topic already covered being brought up again, if that's the case, but having considered that may be the case i think it merits further consideration.
I think that http://st911.org/ should be included as an external link.
I know that many will say that it belongs on the 9/11 conspiracies page, but i think that its content is in the conspiracies page. Adding it as a link recognizes that there is an increasingly divergent opinion about the facts of the tower collapses. Wikipedia is great in that its content is factually supported as best as possible (recent study indicated that Wikipedia is generally at least as reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica on science and nature articles) but also able to incorporate new information. 3 of the papers published by PhDs at the site i'm suggesting respond to the findings of the 9/11 Commission. They report interviews with highly regarded demolition experts, they add additional information about certain events in the lead up to and the follow up of the WTC collapse.
They do have a wide base of skills and experience within their membership, and if there is objection to adding a link to their site on the grounds that some of its content or links it provides are not as well supported as others, then i believe there should be a link from this Wikipedia article to at least the same article as linked to from the WTC7 Wikipedia entry which is available on the ST911 site.
I am not starting any argument here based on things which I've read, watched, listened to, or considered and i don't feel i need to or that anybody needs to take a contrary 'raving loonie conspiracy' stance. The article would be more complete if the link was included in the External Links section, or if Scholars for 911 truth was hyperlinked when it's mentioned in the article, although that would then have to go to a Wiki about them before linking. Holigopoly 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The second plane, Flight 175, hit at 9:03 and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. Yet in 34 minutes between the two hits, surface-to-air missiles were completely ignored and they had to scramble fighters from miles away to try to intercept Flight 77? I've always wondered about this. Did Washington believe that Flight 77 was somehow different from the others and that it WASN'T going to be a suicide run? Why weren't surface-to-air missiles used to take down Flight 77?-- Secret Agent Man 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not putting in 'scare' quotes. What do you mean by that? When I last asked for request for comment the consensus that came out of it was that terrorist word was undefined and too POV to use it (unless article is quoting USGOV) -- max rspct leave a message 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism is much abused word and is currently being applied (by USGOV, media and their defenders) in away that is much broader than violence against innocent civilians. We have a big problem if you are going to equate terrorism with unconventional warfare. Also , the WTC attack was an attack on the economy of USA > it was not deliberatly targeted at innocent civilians. When it comes to US-sponsered terrorism (and don't forget past genocides and the torture going on in Guantanamo bay right now) I don't even have to mention the atomic/fire bombings. What about Gen Wesley Clark and his bombings of infrastructure and bridges in Serbia (to undermine serbian economy and moral) during the Kosovo War - are you going to tell me they were terrorist actions or not? On those hi-tech images of bombs going into those bridges it was clear that civilian traffic was on them and the results were as dramatic and horrific as the sequence of events on 9/11... tho I am sure US TV networks weren't pitching their tents next to those parts of Serbia etc etc that were being bombed. My main concern is the blanket use of that term (terrorism) within this article including the generalising description of Indonesian and Philipino Islamic movements. As for calling someone by their usename ...well what are usernames for if you can't alert people on talkpages...? If you keep making threats against me MONGO (a dishonourable way of trying to put people off editing this page) I will go for arbitration with you about that AND this article. Perhaps you are just overzealous. As for unconventional warfare - don't tell me the USA hasn't engaged in this as you know perfectly well they have. Last week US defence chiefs unveiled their plan for battling global Islamist extremism: "..require global mobility, rapid strike, sustained unconventional warfare.." See America's long war -- max rspct leave a message 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To avoid generalizations, I think the word "Islamofascist terrorist" is the appropriate one, because it's specific and non-sweeping. It doesn't try to paint all believers as terrorists, nor even those with Islamofascist beliefs -- it identifies those which are the culprits of the 9/11 attacks -- those with radical, militant, religious beliefs who also couple these beliefs with violent action. We are not talking about all terrorists in this article, nor are we talking about conventional insurgent activity, which is far too broad for the scope of this article. It's a specific non-judgmental term.
Morton devonshire 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about conspiracy theories. When is this terrorism as neutral word on wikipedia then? I can only find this>
Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). Also, see this from
terrorism article >
"The definition of a terrorist is so fraught with problems that
Charles Clarke, the
Home Secretary of
Great Britain was forced into providing a list of "approved terrorists" in an attempt to pass his anti-terrorist bill. There was clearly no point in passing legislation to ban people from applauding terrorists if some national and international heroes were not on his list."
Intersting huh? The word is not properly defined and should not be used. Throughout the
apartheid years the
ANC constantly referred to as terorist by the National Party government. And look where we're at now. --
max rspct
leave a message 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Mmx1 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Funny how I keep getting Appeal to emotion, Appeal to motive and Ad hominem - "oh come on Max" "Quit playing games.." etc. Will someone please explain why 'terrorists' should be applied to this article ..while without refering to death, disatser or USGOV view. All MONGO can come up with (besides trying to equate it with unconventional warfare) is "What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism..." Where's the explanation? Terrorism is much undefined and contentious and therefore should not be used in the article except when presenting the USGOV (and their supporters) view of events. -- max rspct leave a message 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with..." What word do the governments and newspapers of these countries use? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh? So newspapers say something is so.. then that's truth right? No room for unbiasness..? The NYtimes says such and such so it must be true? I am not saying that 9/11 hijackers have not been called terrorists. I am not saying that I do not believe they were terrorists. I am just saying that this article should be unbias and take into account both sides of this war without having one view dominating the article. This is happening with the use of the word terrorist. As I have said before Reuters and BBC have preferenced 'insurgents' over terrorists'. -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
see these>
Use of word in Canadian news,
BBC actions,
BBC again,
[15] ..oh and of course CNN backs you up >
[16] --
max rspct
leave a message 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" is a ridiculous phrase. -- Mr. Billion 05:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"The anniversary of September 11, 2001 was dedicated as 'Patriots day'." Can someone move or remove this from the intro? My browser can't edit the intro without chopping off the end of the page. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What historical articles of any encyclopedia have a hypothetical "worst case scenario" to describe what didn't happen?
Even thought it's an authoritative source doing the speculating, it doesn't alter the fact that it is expressing speculation as opposed to an account of what actually happened. patsw 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This aricle is pov. It claims the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory to be factual, something diputed all over the world, even by Bush's former economy minister. All factual statements of the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be NPOVed and the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be split to its own article, just att all other 9/11 conspiracy theroies are on other articles -- Striver 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not factual, the bin laden conspiracy theory is contested, and all the "evidence" it supports itself on is also contested. You may belive it is factual, and you are free to do so. I belive other theories to be factual. This article CLAIMIN one or another theory is factual is POV. It needs to present all of them as theories, and factualy claim that the Bin Laden theory is the one most people regard as credibl-- Striver 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)e, and most people belive to be factual.
I will give you a list of educated and notable people disputing the theory, i cant do it from here. Ill return with a list in about 4-5 houres. -- Striver 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not comaparable with the flat earth theory. We dont have congress womans and university teachers and ex-NYPD people beliving the earth is flat.--
Striver 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the allegation of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory being a POV fork. This article is MAINLY about the attack, not about any eventual theories about how and why. That is easly demostrated by the desicion of removing all OTHER theories to its separate article. But i wont pursue that, its better to me to focus on another angle:
This article states the most popular conspiracy theory to be factual. That is POV. I want that NPOVed. -- Striver 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that this is a POV DISPUTE? Am i air to you?-- Striver 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The above-conflict has shown a bright light on an issue I hadn't considered before, which is WP's policy on Admin neutrality. Since the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I've seen Admins violate all sorts of WP policies to advance their own edit agendas, everything from nominating articles for speedy deletion, ad hominem attacks, stalking, violating 3RR, and writing articles without sources. Is there truly no neutrality standard for Admins? Sorry to burden this audience, but I'm trying to understand where the line is supposed to be drawn, and want to hear from those of you that I know from these pages rather than some dufus who patrols Admin pages. Also, the issue has now become relevant for this article (and the fork) as well. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens
You are breaking NPOV by claimin a theory that is disputed by all of the above to be factual! --
Striver 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The official theory is that neirth the Bush administration, nor the FBI, nor the CIA KNEW about it.
The people in the Zogby poll claimed they did not belive in that theory, instead they belived that they at LEAST knew about it and "they consciously failed to act". This article does not even MENTION that. a clear breach of NPOV. -- Striver 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The report say they " to connect the dots in time", while people belive they "they consciously failed to act". It is a BIG difference between "not havin time" and "consciously failing". -- Striver 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont buy "likely ", "likely" is original research. Official theory: "not enogh time". Zogby answer: "consciously failed". Not even close to eachoter. -- Striver 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is geting to a sidetracked. I dont care what they belived they answered. My claim stands even if we totaly disregard the zogby poll. -- Striver 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Bamford claim was vague, and a misstake to include it. It detracted from my credibility. The zogby poll is first hand verifiable. It asked whether some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". [19]
The answer was a 40-50 "yes" to that. Some tried to original research it to meaning something else than "they consciously failed to act" wheupon i stated that im not here to speculated what they could mean, im only intrested in the obvious statement. Further, i say that my point stands even if the two most ambigues evidence i brought are removed.
Dont bother with those two, it diverts the discussion from what i intended: To change the contains of this aritcle based on stating that the other views are not to be ignored. The other sources i brought are sufficient to support my claim, even withouth those two -- Striver 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I brought 16 points. Two are criticized. 14 remain uncriticized. -- Striver 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I readd my statment:
Ok, i read it:
This means that if i can "easyly name prominent adherents", this view is "a viewpoint...held by a significant minority" and NOT by "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority"
Lets see:
Yes, it was fairly easy to find a:
and more...
Thus: it "is held by a significant minority". Thus our view is a valid reason to not state the other view as factual.
-- Striver 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As is now, our theory is treated as a "tiny-minority", while it in fact is a "significant minority" view. --
Striver 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Try this, they are talking about Pearl Haribor, Oklahoma city bombing and every other thing that is usualy refered to as nut case theories:
www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used
If you want the actual tape, i can try to find it, i have heard it several times.
Ask yourself: Why would David Schipperes talk to Alex Jones in the first place? -- Striver 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actauly, the Wikipedia article got it wrong, he never said six weeks, but the transcripts stand, DS support several "nut case theories" -- Striver 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude, are we talking about the same Alex Jones? The Illuminati-Freemasonry-Tri-Lateralists are gonna get us Alex Jones? Morton devonshire 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Download the 9-11: The Road to Tyranny [22] for free, its legal, and listen to the DS-AJ talk. Its on 57 miuntes 50second. -- Striver 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That is simply not true, it only proves that you know nothing about other views.-- Striver 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation
-- Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Here, a site of scholars sayin the USA governments is lying about 9/11
[23] --
Striver 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
among them:
Is he also a nut-case? --
Striver 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Your claim "without any substance to back it up" is simply false. We already know that you do not share our view, you do not need to reiterate that, we already know that you do not view our arguments as convincing. I find it offesive that you claim we base our view on nothing, just yelling for fun and to get attention. You not accepting our view does not result in Wikipedia presenting your view as factual -- Striver 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
And just to give a simple evidence of control demolition: Building seven, and Harry addminting they "pull it". But im not here to talk about what is the truth or not, im here to edit Wikipedia in a NPOV manner. -- Striver 13:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Larry Silverstein. I do not need to present a single shreed of evidence. I only need to establish that a significan minority contests this theory. And i have done that. -- Striver 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, no meta-discussion in this section. patsw 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I can get you a list of evidence, but there is no reason. I am not here to convince you that other theories are credible, or that the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is false. The truth it totaly irrelevant to my claim. My claim is: A significant minority is contesting the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and hence is Wikipedia not to present the Bin Laden conspiracy theory as factual, no mater who is right. Wikipeida does not care for the truth.
This demand can not be contested.
-- Striver 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Get real mongo, do you even know what the word "conpiracy" means? Ill quote this article as it is now:
-- Striver 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
So, is my claim proven correct? I claim the following three points:
1) Wikipedia policies forbid that the Bin Laden theory is stated as factual as long as a "significant minority" contest it.
2) There is a "significant minority" contesting the Bin Laden theory.
3) The Bin Laden theory is not to be presented as factual in Wikiepdia.
Is any of this three statments are contested? If not, i will prepare to make changes. --
Striver 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I guess i need to continue talking. -- Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry, that is not true. I have mentioned people that are notable in themselve, not withstanding their view on 9/11. ill list a few of them again:
That is a *short* list of people notable in themself. HOWEVER! Let me remined you that the wiki policy is NOT to find people that are notable in themsleve for the view to be considered "significant minority", it is enough that it is easy to find proponets of the view. And for that, i need not go longer than Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and Michael Rivero. With that, i state that i have provided much more evidence than necesary to prove that i hold a "significant minority" view. -- Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Quasipalm 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i belive that Wikipolicy is very clear that "theory of evolution" should not be presented as factual. I think many of the problems they face on that article is that they have merged "Macro Evolution" with "Micro Evolution". The second is not contested, and can be presented as a fact, but a "significant minority" is contesting "Macro Evolution". The correct thing to do is to split the Evolution article into Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.
I agree that September 11, 2001 attacks / 9/11 conspiracy theories makes sence, one article for the facts, another one for the theory. I am not contesting that. What i am contesting is that a theory contested by a "significant minority" is presented as factual, and that goes against core principles of Wikiepdia WP:NPOV.
As for the
Apollo 11 /
Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, that is unfair since there is no "significant minority" for that theis, and certainly not a list of this kind:
As for Evolution / Creation-evolution controversy, i mentioned it above.
In other words: "Apollo moon landing hoax" is not comparable, and Evolution is filled with POV talks in the talk page, so that is no ideal solution to point to. I await your answer-- Striver 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Bro, you are misstaken. I am not here to say what happpened. I am saying that a contested view is presented as factual, and that is POV. I have provided ample proof of the theory being rejected by a "significant minority". My aim right now is very simple: Stop claiming the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is factual, since it is contested by a "significant minority".
I do not need to give a alternative theory for that. In fact, that would weeken my position, people would start attacking it, and i would need to start defending it, instead of focusing on the main issue. The simple rejection of the theory as factual is enough for Wikipedia to not claim it as factual.
Now, it happens that i do have a alternative theory, but i have no need to bring that up. It would just side track me. I keep it simple, and nobody can refute me as long as i do that. -- Striver 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, James Bamford was a misstake. But David Schippers is much more that "merely critical", he is stating things that are generaly labeled with the pejorative "conspiracy theories", such as US having foreknowledge of pearl Harbor, and Irakir elit guard being involved in the Oklahoma city bombing. Why dont you dissprove these guys saying Bush did it?
-- Striver 02:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I read your massage again. Please tell me if you feel i did not understand you. -- Striver 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus for Striver's particular point here, except his own, so let's consider the matter decided. Stive-man -- admire your determination, but save your powder for another day. Peace out. Morton devonshire 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Bro, i know that people are not agreeing with me, they are offering all kinds of explenations and counter arguements that are not valid, such as demanding that i give evidence and other things that wikipedia policies do not oblige me to offer. I have Wikipolicy on my side, and people will eventualy see that. Thanks for your comment.-- Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT here to prove or promote any theory, theis or anything at all.
I AM here to state that the Bin Laden theory is not to be stated as factual.
--
Striver 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone more having a vaild counterarguement?
Anyone else contesting that a "significant minority", according to wikiepdia standarts, is rejecting the Bin Laden theory? -- Striver 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As i see it, i am quoting WP official policies, and i am delivering exactly what it demands from me.
Basicly: I have right.
Basicly: You dont like it. You hate it. You give non-relevant arguements against it.
So, can i have a relevant argument?
Do not give me the following, since it has been proven irrelevant or false:
And such. I dont need to prove anyting. I only need to establish that a significant minority, in Wikipeida standards, reject it, and i have done that.
The truth is:
You dont like it. You seem to argue that if you stop answering me, or keep repreating irrelevant arguments, ill get tired and go away. That is not going to happen. -- Striver 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
And for your benefit, i repreat a short list of people rejecting the theory:
-- Striver 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You are talking about their theories. In that sense, the are not a uniform, but they are uniform in that they reject the Bin Laden version, and that is my point.
Im not here to give a theory, im here to state that a significant minorty REJECTS the Bin Laden view. And according to WP:NPOV, that means "easly to find representatives". And i did that.
And i did better than that, i even presented individual that are notable in themselves. It is impossible to claim that * the former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry and the The former chief economist of George W. Bush are insignificant people. And they reject the Bin Laden theory. Hence, it is proven that this article is POV. -- Striver 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm suprised to see that so many people belive that conspiracy BS. Hell, someone has even claimed that a nuclear bomb destroyed the towers. Kurt Leyman
You are talking about the nutcases, either patsies or idiots. Let me quote:
-- Striver 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is proven factual, why dont you go claim the 1 000 000 dollars?-- Striver 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the paragraph about Howard Stern here? This doesn't seem to be public response but an advertisement for Stern. His show was an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' is POV. My local tv station was also an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' but it has no mention.
Should this paragraph be deleted? I could be wrong of course so if I am that is fine. -- Skinnyboy401 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The fatwa was jointly issued with Fazlur Rahman (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam rather than the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman. Is this correct? -- max rspct leave a message 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is still pov.
And by the way, read this:
I dropped it since i didnt want my main point being diverted into a disscusion about what they meant. I reposted it since i now have the complete quote and article.
This article is still POV, it portrays the Bin Laden theory as factual. Read:
"Believe news reports that
Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:
Now, dont tell me that 86% of Pakistan is a insignicant minorty. -- Striver 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So, anyone that want to argue that the article is is NPOV? Majority in the middle east outright reject Arab involvment, S9/11T reject Bin Ladin theory, half of newyourk belives government is lying... c'mon, people, its imposible to say all of those are insignificant! -- Striver 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no position on the articles you mentioned. I try to focus on one single issue here: The article presenting the Bin Laden theory as factual is pov, since it is notably diputed, to say the least. -- Striver 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I read your edit, and i didnt get what this means:
Could you expand on that? -- Striver 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A significant number of doubters means you mention that a significant number doubt it. It doesn't mean you change it to a theory unless you have facts saying otherwise. -- Mmx1 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we that reject the Bin Laden theory do not regard what you call "evidence" as convincing. But anyhow, Wikipedia does not care for facts, truth and such. Not the least. from WP:NPOV
-- Striver 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
also from
WP:NPOV: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. The "Bin Laden Theory", as you call it, is factual. Debate on this page has not negated that. The doubters have nothing consistent to offer (if it did you would be offering it instead of asserting "so many people believe X is false, hence we must state it as an opinion".
--
Mmx1 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Jesus page and note that it's neutrality is disputed. So is John F. Kennedy assassination. Why shouldn't this page be so? To address Babajobu, I think what I percieve is a majority imposing it's will on a minority. Just because the minority is fractous doesn't mean it's wrong. The minority claim is this: the story as told by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and FEMA is largely untrue. Pakistani villagers may express that differently but it's the same claim. Look at Galileo's minority opinion which we now generally agree to have been more correct than the official story of the time. Kaimiddleton 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose adding "See also 9/11 Truth Movement" under the heading of "Conspiracy Theories". The fact that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement is not mentioned anywhere on this page. 9/11 conspiracy theories and a movement of people asking questions about the government related but distinct. Furthermore, the movement has been steadily present over time. I see every reason to include a short "see also" in a section that is already very short, and feel that it is of extreme POV to argue otherwise. Kaimiddleton 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither are any of the individual conspiracy theories mentioned here. Avoiding scrutiny by hiding under the phrase "asking questions" doesn't give your group any priority over all the rest. -- Mmx1 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That group is but one of dozens of groups that claim they have all the "truth" on the issue. That "movement" can be discussed in more detail in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is not extreme POV to argue otherwise.-- MONGO 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
To echo MONGO: If none of the individual conspiracy theories are mentioned here I find that fair. However "my group" is not quite an accurate characterization in my view; for instance, the "peace movement" is made of many different groups. My group is the 9/11 truth alliance. There are many researchers or people in the broader public who do not go under that rubrick but consider themselves "members of" or even just "involved in" the "9/11 truth movement". Kaimiddleton 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I argue that excluding my short phrase is POV as follows: 1) the comment is short. 2) the rest of the article is long and, from my perspective, reflects the "official story" or the story expressed by the mainstream press in great detail. Many other pages are linked to from here, e.g., a list of tenants (victims) of the two towers. Significant members of the victims families, e.g. the jersey girls, are part of the movement of people who continue to ask questions about the official story. The history of their claims is reflected in the article 9/11 Truth Movement whereas their claims themselves are reflected in 9/11 conspiracy theories. These are separate (though linked) subjects, both of notable significance. Compare that with pressing "random article" on wikipidia. Therefore, they deserve mention here in the way I have done. There is nowhere else on this page that "9/11 truth movement" is mentioned. Therefore it is appropriate and non-redundant to mention it here. Kaimiddleton 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And if you apply this consistently to every other group under 9/11, we end up with a list of alternate theories which is exactly why the section got spun off. -- Mmx1 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the article history comment I see:
Ok: we seem to be on the subject for Framing (communication theory); you might argue I want to frame the discussion one way or another. It is clear to me that framing linked-to material as "conspiracy theories" rather than "9/11 truth movement" weakens my case. So I see your point about the "naming discussion". However, I think it's not a rehash of that discussion because I am viewing the "9/11 truth movement" article as a discussion of the sweep of the movement (when did it start, how many people are involved, what kind of political actions happened), rather than a crystalized summary of specific claims of that movement, as reflected in "9/11 conspiracy theories". Kaimiddleton 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the formatting slightly of how I'm adding reference to the 9/11 truth movement. I have done it as a reference. The next section does it the same way. Since the conspiracy theory is a section under this article it should have more than a cursory mention of what the sub-section talks about. In fact this section should be further fleshed out. By providing a reference to a non-trivial article that already exists it gives the wiki reader a place to go to find out more if they so choose. That's the point, isn't it? Kaimiddleton 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added another sentence:
I think that's a clear characterization of what's going on. Let me put my viewpoint in a less formal manner: there are conspiracy theories. There was a report. There is still argument. Yes, there is actually an ongoing effort by numerous individuals to ask more questions. NOW: that's simple, accurate information, and in my view to not say that is censorship and POV. Kaimiddleton 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose inclusion of references to the 9/11 Truth Movement in this article. That sort of stuff belongs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Morton devonshire 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in saying that all the hijackers had identity cards? If so, that would seem to be notable and thus worthy of mention in the article. Eiler7 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is worthy of inclusion.. or perhaps to the 'planning of the attacks article'? -- max rspct leave a message 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the text, "five major airlines declared bankruptcy in the four years following the attacks", because I think including this implies a direct cause and effect between the terrorist attacks and the problems in the airline industry. Undoubtedly, the terrorist attacks had a major effect on the airline industry (so, I kept the word "severely"), but even without the attacks, the airlines were in trouble anyway. This is due similar reasons as those impacting General Motors and the Ford Motor Company (e.g. underfunded pensions, health care costs, benefits, ...). Another major reason for the airline stuggles is competition with airlines such as Southwest Airlines, which doesn't have the same structural problems and hasn't experience the same problems since the terrorist attacks. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)